One would think that with $trillion plus deficits and pedal to the metal monetary policy that the economy should be growing at 5 to 10% annual growth rates, not 2 or 3%.

9:33 am December 3, 2012

Macro Boy wrote:

Bullard isn't a voter this year, but he will be in 2013

9:42 am December 3, 2012

David Weiseth wrote:

I would argue that we have been in a silent recession due to the prolonged unemployment, but the FED has made this a sort of "silent " recession with a very liberal monetary policy. I cannot say I agree with the FED's move in degree, but I do agree with the strategy overall. The Market loved it, I guess that is all Bernanke cares about, palliative treatments.

Unemployment is the single most important factor, it is more important than any other concern, even the debt or deficit. I do however believe strongly that a failure to reach a reasonable long term enforceable agreement on the coming "fiscal Cliff" will be disastrous for the economy. This will shake the very foundation of confidence in Washington and its ability to cope with the very significant fiscal problems this country has. This will be a "Cliff" of confidence which result in a spiral of lost optimism that we can climb out of this situation. Do not play with this, if the worst happens, the American public is going to go head hunting and every politician will want to hide in a hole.

Unemployment insurance should not be extended, it is time to face this, and put the money in training and services to help people work. We must lower the unemployment rate significantly in this Obama term, it is absolutely critical! God bless America!

9:48 am December 3, 2012

Dave wrote:

The fact that he ties his prediction to the fiscal cliff is just proof that he has no clue. The mere fact that Reid, Boehner and Obama agree on something and declare that the fiscal cliff has been averted does not make their policy any better from an economic standpoint. You can't avert the fiscal cliff by increasing taxes, nor by cutting spending. That's what we're trying to avoid.

10:10 am December 3, 2012

You wrote:

I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing..http://al.ly/nNu

10:32 am December 3, 2012

SteveAFA wrote:

The true fiscal cliff is the long term cost of entitlements, only made worse by adding more free stuff under ObamaCare.

10:43 am December 3, 2012

Jess Sayin wrote:

It's time to jump off the fiscal cliff. The Fed is intellectually bankrupt. They are largely clueless.

10:48 am December 3, 2012

Anonymous wrote:

I suspect the declining unemployment number has more to do with the reduced labor force participation rate than it does with economic improvements. I'd also like to hear more specifics from Bullard as to exactly why he believes the housing and European situations are improving. Just stating that they are doesn't really prove his case.

Bullard was a big fan of QE. He's on record as saying the economy should start to feel their effects in 6 to 18 months. It could be he's beginning to doubt this and is simply setting up the "fiscal cliff" battle as an excuse for why QE did not work.

11:35 am December 3, 2012

RogerB34 wrote:

" What that means is that if the economy does grow at 3% or 3.5%, it is growing above potential and then you would see more rapid decline in unemployment."
GDP 1930 - 1999 average per year is 3.6 percent.
GDP 1930 - 2011 average per year is 3.2 percent.
GDP 2000 - 2010 average per year is 1.8 percent, 2011 GDP is 1.8 percent with 2.1 percent forecast for 2012.
According to Mr Bullard, Happy Days are Here Again.
That was FDR's message 1933 - 1941 where unemployment averaged 17 percent per year.
The economy isn't going to recover 2013 for the same reason it did not recover during the Depression.
Print, Stimulus, Redistribute does not equal Jobs and Prosperity for All.

12:01 pm December 3, 2012

Xenophon wrote:

Oh, yea...those Fed guys really know what they're talking about, don't they? I wonder how many of them could even run a small business successfully?

12:53 pm December 3, 2012

Fed can't count wrote:

GDP numbers that include the federal deficit don't measure growth. When $1.1tr of the $15tr US GDP is not paid for there is no underlying growth. So net out the 7% debt against the anemic 2% growth and what do you have? A number that is just as sick as the economy it is supposed to reflect.

2:00 pm December 3, 2012

martellawintek wrote:

hi there susie it took me ages to find it here is the web address
filling address , they have a wealth of knowledge , mention wintek put you on

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Real Time Economics

Real Time Economics offers exclusive news, analysis and commentary on the U.S. and global economy, central bank policy and economics. Send news items, comments and questions to the editors and reporters below or email realtimeeconomics@wsj.com.